US Appeals Court Judge Rejects ProPublica Story on Justice Clarence Thomas

During event, judge dismisses claims of 'scandal' involving SCOTUS justice

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photograph of the justices at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021. Erin Schaff/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Two appeals court judges recently weighed in on reporting around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and that he and his wife were gifted with trips and vacations from a billionaire friend for decades.

Judge Thomas Hardiman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the notion of a “scandal” surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Last week, left-wing outlet ProPublica published an article in which “experts,” some unnamed, argue Justice Thomas violated disclosure obligations by neglecting to report luxury gifts he received from billionaire friend Harlan Crow.

“The thing that I thought was weird about the Justice Thomas thing is the ‘scandal,’ to use your word, there was no intimation at any time, ever, that his billionaire friend ever had any business before the Supreme Court. So, how’s he helping his friend? He’s not even in a position to help his friend because his friend had exactly zero cases in the Supreme Court,” Judge Hardiman said in response to a question asked by an undergraduate during this week’s event, according to the National Review.

He was making reference to a ProPublica article published earlier this month that cited several unnamed experts who claimed that Thomas violated disclosure obligations by not reporting luxury gifts he received from billionaire Harlan Crow, a friend of his. The move prompted some Democratic lawmakers—namely Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—to propose impeaching Thomas.

“You know, I decide cases involving lawyers in Pittsburgh. And I know these lawyers, some of them are former law partners of mine. I belong to organizations with them, I go to lunch with them. Should I not hear their cases? If you have such suspicion about our integrity, you could really end up in a situation where judges can’t even do their jobs because at some point you’re attached to everybody,” Hardiman continued.

“If someone wanted to make me look bad and I happened to rule in favor of a client in an immigration case that was argued by my former law clerk, oh, there would be a big exposé, ‘oh, Hardiman chose partiality to his law clerk,’” Hardiman then said.

The judge then gave an example:  “I’ve had my former law clerks stand up in court and argue cases. And I don’t think they’ve ever won a case. And it’s not because they’re not brilliant lawyers. They are. But usually they’re doing pro bono immigration cases, and sadly, for the immigrants, those cases can be very difficult to win.”

Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said that there is a difference between “an actual instance of corruption” and “the mere perception” during remarks he made during the event. “I think the appearance issue is absolutely important” as “the judiciary basically rests on its credibility,” he said, according to the National Review.

Judge Thomas Hardiman, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is seen in Washington, on Nov. 17, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen

“The judiciary, like any human institution, isn’t perfect, because none of us are perfect,” Ho added.

Earlier in the month, a report published by nonprofit news organization ProPublica, which receives some funding from billionaire financier George Soros, said that Thomas had accepted luxury trips almost every year over the past 20 years or so without disclosing them.

“The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court,” according to the article.

Amid the reporting, both Thomas and Crow have released statements downplaying the significance of the gifts, with Thomas maintaining that he was not required to disclose the trips.

“As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas said. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”

He added that “these guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance.

And Crow, a Republican donor, has told news outlets the trips with Thomas and his wife, Ginni, were “no different from the hospitality … extended to many other dear friends.” He added, “Justice Thomas and Ginni never asked for any of this hospitality.”